If you know someone that needs to be added to this policy briefing, please let us know by sending an e-mail here: info@puregrassroots.org.
Based on all the (available) reports, evidence, testimonies and eyewitnesses, this paper is a critical analysis of the likelihood of voter fraud given the digital resources used to vote and count votes.
Critical Analysis of Voter Fraud Likelihood in Digital Voting Systems
Introduction
In the era of digital voting systems, concerns around voter fraud have become increasingly prominent. These concerns often stem from a combination of reports, evidence, testimonies, and eyewitness accounts suggesting potential vulnerabilities in both the voting process and vote-counting mechanisms. This critical analysis examines the likelihood of voter fraud within digital systems, exploring the inherent risks in the technologies used, while also considering methods by which fraud could be committed without poll workers' knowledge.
1. Overview of Digital Voting Systems
Modern elections increasingly rely on various digital technologies, including:
Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs): Machines used at polling stations to cast and count votes.
Optical Scanners: Devices that scan paper ballots and tally votes electronically.
Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Systems: Voters directly input their choices into a machine, and results are digitally stored.
Electronic Poll Books: Systems that record voter check-in data.
Remote Voting Systems: Includes internet-based voting for absentee or overseas voters.
While these technologies offer efficiency, they also introduce new attack surfaces for potential fraud.
2. Reported Vulnerabilities in Digital Voting
Numerous reports and expert analyses have highlighted the following vulnerabilities that could, in theory, facilitate voter fraud:
Insecure Software and Hardware: Many voting machines and tabulation systems run on outdated software that may not have received recent security patches. If these systems are breached, malicious actors could alter vote totals or tamper with results undetected.
Lack of Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPAT): Some digital systems do not produce a physical record of votes, making it difficult to perform reliable audits or recounts. This opens the door to fraud that leaves little evidence.
Supply Chain Attacks: Hardware components in voting machines could be compromised during manufacturing, allowing attackers to pre-install malicious firmware or backdoors that enable fraud on election day.
Network Vulnerabilities: Systems that are network-connected, either for tabulation or data transmission, are susceptible to cyber-attacks. Hackers could intercept or manipulate results during transmission to central tallying locations.
3. Testimonies and Eyewitness Accounts
Testimonies from election officials and poll workers generally emphasize the integrity of the election process, but there have been numerous claims of irregularities in various elections. Eyewitness accounts often involve human errors, such as poll workers misunderstanding how machines operate, which may inadvertently conceal fraud.
For instance:
Votes Changing on DRE Machines: Some voters have reported seeing their selections change on-screen after submitting their vote. While this may be attributed to machine malfunctions, it also raises the possibility of tampering.
Suspicious Activity in Vote-Counting Centers: Witnesses have raised concerns about irregularities during the counting process, such as unexplained pauses in vote reporting or discrepancies between initial and final tallies.
4. Likelihood of Large-Scale Voter Fraud
Despite these vulnerabilities, the likelihood of large-scale voter fraud in digital voting systems remains a subject of debate. The following factors must be considered:
Internal Security Measures: Many digital voting systems are designed with multiple layers of security, such as encryption, user authentication, and access controls. Additionally, security audits and testing procedures (including penetration testing) are often conducted before elections to identify vulnerabilities.
Distributed Election Infrastructure: In most countries, elections are decentralized, with individual states or districts managing their own voting systems. This decentralization makes it more difficult for a single coordinated attack to influence election outcomes at a national level.
Audit and Recount Mechanisms: In jurisdictions with voter-verified paper trails and rigorous audit protocols, digital tampering could potentially be detected and corrected during recounts or post-election audits.
However, in areas where these protections are not fully implemented, the risk of undetected fraud increases.
5. Methods of Committing Voter Fraud without Poll Workers' Knowledge
Fraudulent activity within digital voting systems could theoretically be carried out in ways that bypass detection by poll workers or election officials. Below are several methods:
a) Malware Attacks on Voting Machines
Pre-Installed Malware: Voting machines could be pre-infected with malware designed to manipulate vote counts. Such malware could be dormant until activated on election day, modifying results in favor of a certain candidate.
Remote Access: Some machines may have vulnerabilities that allow hackers to access them remotely. By exploiting these vulnerabilities, attackers could change vote totals after polls close, all without leaving a trace that poll workers would detect.
b) Manipulation of Central Tabulation Systems
Even if local voting machines are secure, the central systems that aggregate vote counts from various precincts might be vulnerable. Attackers could:
Intercept and Modify Vote Data During Transmission: Votes transmitted electronically to central databases could be intercepted and altered en route, resulting in fraudulent final tallies.
Attack on Central Servers: Hackers with access to central servers could modify databases directly, changing vote totals or even deleting votes for specific candidates.
c) Exploiting Human Factors
Social Engineering: Attackers could use social engineering tactics to manipulate poll workers or IT staff, tricking them into installing malicious software or granting unauthorized access to systems.
Phantom Voters: Fraudulent registrations (e.g., of deceased individuals or fictitious people) could be used in conjunction with remote voting systems, such as mail-in ballots or internet voting, to cast votes that appear legitimate.
d) Supply Chain Attacks
Attackers could compromise the voting machines before they ever reach polling locations by tampering with hardware or software during the manufacturing process. This method could insert backdoors or other vulnerabilities into the machines, enabling fraud once they are deployed for use.
6. Countermeasures and Mitigation
To address the risks of fraud in digital voting systems, several key measures are recommended:
Paper Trails: Ensuring that all voting machines produce a verifiable paper trail that can be used in audits or recounts is crucial. This helps detect and correct any discrepancies between digital results and voter intent.
End-to-End Encryption: Votes should be encrypted at every stage, from the moment they are cast to when they are stored and transmitted, reducing the likelihood of data manipulation.
Routine Audits and Penetration Testing: Regular security audits and penetration tests should be conducted to identify potential vulnerabilities before elections.
Decentralization of Counting: Maintaining a decentralized vote-counting process ensures that any single-point attacks will not impact the overall results.
Conclusion
First, I would like to say that poll workers, in my opinion are no less key that 1st responders in any other critical matter occurring in our society. They risk their freedom in even working the polls given the lawfare that each major political party plays…its distressful and needs to stop!
However, while digital voting systems present opportunities for efficiency and accuracy, they also come with serious and real inherent risks that could facilitate voter fraud if not properly addressed. The likelihood of widespread voter fraud in a well-regulated system with strong security measures is relatively low, but
vulnerabilities do exist, particularly in jurisdictions with weaker protections or where the people managing the process have ill intent. Potential methods of fraud, including malware attacks, manipulation of central tabulation systems, and exploitation of human factors, can bypass the notice of poll workers, further highlighting the need for robust security protocols, auditability, and transparency in digital voting systems.
By implementing comprehensive security measures and maintaining vigilance throughout the election process, the integrity of digital voting can be preserved, minimizing the likelihood of successful voter fraud.
If you have any comments or questions for ARP, please contact us at: info@puregrassroots.org.
Yours in Service,
Dr. James M. Copas Chairman & CEO, American Republic Policy
(Just standing in for Dr R. Morris Owens, who needed a break)
P.S. Please forward this e-mail on to all the other activists in your network.
REMEMBER THAT OH YE DOERS OF ILL DEEDS!
No longer want to receive these emails? Unsubscribe. PGMP PO Box 101 Delaware, AR 72835
